List folders

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only light domain context (folders are how library media is organised), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what an empty result means for a workspace with no folders.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short clause with zero filler and no repetition of the tool name. It is efficiently sized, though the terseness comes at the cost of the explicit verb.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations describing the payload, so the description should carry the burden of telling the agent what a folder record looks like (id, name, parent) and whether results are scoped to library media only. That information is entirely absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter (workspaceId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the default-to-active-workspace behaviour. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names the resource (folders) and ties it to a specific domain concept: the workspace's library media organisation. Combined with the tool name list_folders, an agent knows this returns the folders in a media library, distinguishing it from list_library_uploads and create_folder. It falls short of 5 only because the sentence is a noun-phrase fragment rather than an explicit statement of the listing action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite many adjacent siblings (list_library_uploads, create_folder, move_uploads_to_folder). The agent must infer that this tool is for discovering folder IDs before creating or moving uploads.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.